October 15, 2011

That's a typical comment at Firedoglake, a big left/liberal blog. Here's another (and it's not like I'm skipping over compliments):

It is said that many Americans think that Barack Obama is a nice guy.

Barack Obama is not a nice guy, and the American people may soon realize that he is not a nice guy.

“Underdog” Obama clearly does not want a second term as President.

Perhaps he deserves another “term”, possibly ten to twenty?

And then, a taxpayer-paid visit to the Hague?

And:

Classless, cluless, cruel and corrupt.

"Classless" is a reference to the "Class Act," the voluntary long-term care insurance component of Obamacare, which the Obama administration has announced it will not — cannot — implement. (I'll write some more about that in the next post. This post is about the intensity of hatred aimed at Obama from the left.)

Another comment:

One more knife in the back for the working men and women of the country. This abomination of a president must be removed from office. He is ruining our country.

And:

Obama’s crappy healthcare overhaul is coming apart like a car put together with superglue, as it was supposed to do, of course, after it transferred everything to the insurance corpse and Big PhRMA.

Pretty soon the only thing left will be the mandate to buy skyrocketing insurance.

A commenter named "demi" says: "he’s not looking as well as he once looked. Something is taking a toll on the man." And the immediate response, from DWBartoo is: "I think he resembles Joseph Goebbels more … every single day, demi … the eyes … the eyes are dead."

Another commenter says: "I don’t understand why the right hates Obama. he is the best Republican President they’ve had in decades."

Another:

I tried to read his autobiography. Found it chock full of trite, and gave up. I knew he was full of BS. I knew he was a front for the elites.

The night he got elected, I went to an election party, had to my partner is a big dem supporter. I kid you not people were crying and hugging one another. I was horrified. had a few people shout at me for not going along with the group hysteria.

Which draws the response: "Have to confess: I fell for it."

And:

I wasn’t into the hysteria but I thought that for once I wasn’t voting for the lesser of two evils but somebody I really wanted in there. Now I don’t believe I voted for the lesser but rather the greater of the two evils. At least if McLame had come up with such an abominable plan, the Democrats would have blocked it if for no other reason than because McLame has an “R” after his name.

All right, I'm going to stop now. I've only combed through a third of the comments, but you can see what is happening: Obama has become the embodiment of their grief over the pending stillborn death of Obamacare.

I'm thinking Obama's best hope for reelection is for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare — find the individual mandate unconstitutional and the remainder of the law inseverable. Take the whole thing down. Let Obama rhapsodize about the beautiful future that might have been — it's very pretty when it's not real — and blast away at that terrible Supreme Court that reaches beyond the realm of the law. Ironically, Obama would be publicly denouncing the Court for getting political and secretly grateful that the political benefit came to him.

Think about it. Obamacare is the nonviable fetus that we continue to carry to term, agonizing in anticipation of a stillborn. It's very sad. But there is the possibility of ending the existence of that misbegotten child. Do you like my metaphor? Within it, the Supreme Court is the abortionist. It can intervene right now and end the suffering.

123 comments:

The reason for the intensity of hatred is that he has instituted nearly every left-wing wet dream they've ever had going back to the 1930's.

And it has a been a total failure. Unemployment is high, anyone buying gasoline for their car or shopping for groceries knows that inflation is in the double digits. This is the logical end point of the left wing's fantasies -- misery throughout the land for everyone who doesn't contribute beau coup dollars to Democrat politicians.

Well, we beg to disagree. Everyone loves the POTUS Obama. The amount of cash the campaign to re-elect has in totally unbelievable. My hot date pays when she goes out me. She refuses to accept mine. The polls shows that the POTUS can defeat Perry virtually everywhere - pick a place (Austin, TX). Perry loses by over 25%. We want PERRY!

Also, see the RCP polls this weekend (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html). This was the highlight of the Happy Hour of the K-street bandits last night at the Hotel Mandarin. There was so much excitement. So many supporters, including reporters.

It now seems that in 2012, we will keep the White House, win the House (with Pelosi as our rightful Speaker), keep the Senate (with Reid as our fearless leader).

What do you expect when he outsourced the bill to Pelosi and a whole bunch of other nuts and stomped his feet demanding they put together and pass SOMETHING, all because (wait for it) -- he wanted it to be a slap on the face to Clintons, especially Hillary who could not pass their own. Great things do not come about if your motives are stupid.

I haven't heard that expression before. It means "An expelled or delivered fetus which, although living, cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with support of the best available medical therapy."

I always thought a baby was called a fetus only while it was still inside the mother and then, after birth, was called a baby or infant once it was born. Here they are calling a living baby who has been born (but is not going to survive) a fetus. Presumably that is to dehumanize the baby.

Obviously their crappy little $50 and $100 campaign contributions were not enough to get the big payoffs like the Solyndra guy and other big Democrat contributors/corporate cronies. It's "pay-to-play," Chicago-style, people. Learn it, love it, live it, as long as Obama is in office.

He has a lot more problems then obamacare. Stimulus One didn't do anything but put us further in debt, and Son of Stimulus will do likewise. These OWS protesters, if they had an ounce of sense, would be protesting at the White House. That's where the problem is. obama sucks.

The metaphor is actually incredibly good. If you don't like it, specify why you don't like it. Think it through. Don't knee jerk on this one.

I'll respond to your specifics. I stand by the metaphor, though I realize it's hard for people who feel very sensitive about abortion to deal with.

But let's assume you think abortion is an atrocity. What if a woman 6-months pregnant had a nonviable fetus that the doctors knew would be stillborn? Should she be required to let nature take its course and deliver the stillborn child?

What if the fetus is already dead? Surely you accept the forcible removal of the corpse.

What if the unborn child is horribly deformed and will live in pain and cause untold anguish and then die within a year? I assume if you are pro-life, you will say, then that is unfortunately what must happen.

Okay, then, in my metaphor, you would say that the Supreme Court should not intervene and strike down the law, no matter how inevitable its demise and no matter how much people will suffer in the time it takes for that to happen. Let nature (politics) take its course.

No artificial killing.

But in this metaphor, if the law is, according to some purely legal form of interpretation, genuinely void because unconstitutional, then the Court should declare that to be so and order that it not be implemented. Any overreaching, helping America out of it's political problem, is an atrocity.

But I agree the Supreme Court getting rid of Obamacare might be a gift to everyone, including Obama and the Dems.

The Dems could say, see, we tried, but those Justices took it away. Vote us in to get better Justices.

Everyone else would breath a sigh of relief.

As for the deep hatred of Obama, I do not see it on the left. I had a few lefty friends who promised to throw a "Close Guantanamo" party (would they serve mojitos and Cuba libres?). I said good luck to that. I haven't heard them mention it lately.

I think Obama supporters are disappointed but they do not hate him (for the most part). But that is my observation.

Big Mike, the reason for the hatred is not because he instituted left wing policies, it's because he hasn't. He has veered more and more toward right of center and THAT is not who we voted for. Progressives would be happy to see Obamacare be aborted,it was the bastard of big Pharma and that whore Insurance Corps. The few good things in the bill could've been done separately .

What if the fetus is already dead? Surely you accept the forcible removal of the corpse.

What if the unborn child is horribly deformed and will live in pain and cause untold anguish and then die within a year?

If that were the case, how will Obama rhapsodize what a beautiful thing it would have been? Your metaphor falls apart. Or does Obama become an anti-abortionist pro-life Republican at that point. He should run on the R ticket.

Ann, The abortion metaphor works but were just a little giddy in your enthusiasm.

Comparing Obamacare to a still born child (I have not been through that myself but I know people who have and it is trather tragic) is what is a bit much. Politically I see nothing good about Obamacare (or the expansion of any entitlements like this--federal entitlements cause harm in the long run. We would have been better off without any of them).

And some people actually find the topic of abortion used in this manner offensive.

Obamacare is the nonviable fetus that we continue to carry to term, agonizing in anticipation of a stillborn. It's very sad. But there is the possibility of ending the existence of that misbegotten child. Do you like my metaphor?

Some people can't stand success. The Left should be ecstatic over the explosion in the size and scope of government's grasp under Obama. But some folks are bound and determined to be miserable. Which is really the only happiness possible for them. Talk about the damned.

Althouse I love the metaphor, yet hate abortion. Despite hating abortion it serves a purpose in our society and has for thousands of years. What is more frightening than a visit ti Firedoglake, is the misogynistic legislation that the Republicans continue to try to shove through Congress. Do conservatives really think illegal abortions are what we should go back to? How regressive of them.

Okay, then, in my metaphor, you would say that the Supreme Court should not intervene and strike down the law, no matter how inevitable its demise and no matter how much people will suffer in the time it takes for that to happen. Let nature (politics) take its course.

Here is what's wrong with your metaphor - there is nothing inevitable, or even likely, about the demise of Obamacare absent action by the Supreme Court.

If Obamacare is upheld, and I think it will be, it won't necessarily cause Obama to lose the election. And even if he does lose the election, I'm skeptical that the Republicans will actually repeal it. They'll probably go for some kind of "mend it, don't end it" compromise.

You're right that repeal would help Obama politically by energizing the base and letting them focus their hate on the Supreme Court, but I don't think it would move the needle as much as you do. Repeal won't help him with independents, who will just roll their eyes and view the whole thing as another Obama fuckup.

The outcome of the election will still hinge on the economy and the strengths and weaknesses of the Republican candidate.

@Robert, healthcare, union ownership of 2 out of the "Big 3" automakers, high gasoline prices to try to force people into mass transit and "green" cars, union dictates where and whether major corporations can build new plants, massive expansion of government regulations ...

Do I need to go on? Should I include a "stimulus" that stimulated nothing except the wallets of the fat cats and interest groups -- NOW, big unions -- that fund the Democrats?

Is there a point, Robert, where you accept that the policies that you favor mean raw misery for everyone who isn't well-connected to Democrat politicians? Or is that the point of everything you favor?

The metaphor is actually incredibly good. If you don't like it, specify why you don't like it. Think it through. Don't knee jerk on this one.

Puh-lease, this isn't a test. We don't need to justify to you why we don't like something. Are we going to play the "I don't like it because..." - "That's not a good enough reason to not like it, or you don't get it and if you did you'd like it" game? Why don't I like a particular color? Because I don't.

His only hope to be elected Prez again is to not run in 2012, go out and get a real job and real experience [i.e. run a state or a business competently] then run again for Prez in 8 or 12 years. But that will never happen because his thinking is as inflexible and as unchangeable as a 70 year-old old fogey.

Maguro, exactly right. The Republican candidates have all been the flavor of the WEAK. progressives and liberals will not vote for any of the current Republican candidates. Independents might vote for Huntsman, but he has no chance, thanks to the Tea Party takeover of the GOP.

I meant to say that I love the metaphor by the distinguished professor.

I just do not agree with the implication: that the greatest POTUS is in trouble.

As I continue to report from the K-street meetings, everything is OK, peachy. We will win as expected. The problem is that the GOP does not know their own limitations: no funds, no vision, no goals, no deliverables, no diversity, no experience, etc. etc. Re-electing the POTUS is just the right thing for all voters.

Obama's one feature that is likeable is his apparent role as a good family man, but even that is not some sacrifice - it's what most men are.

What little history we had of him did not show a very impressive man. The way he won his first election, the rise through political positions that he never even tried to perform in, a truly affirmative action life, and financial success through the luck of selling many copies of a pair of autobiographies of an unimpressive life showed nothing of character or ability.

That's why this is such a typical leftist failure. Style over substance, and refusal to learn from the evidence of history. The hallmarks of modern liberalism.

Even with knowing all that, I'm astounded at how bad he is. I at least gave him a 50/50 chance of being decent.

It's not so much the big failures for me , but the little things like the gifts to and treatment of the British, and his tone deaf attacks on the people in the country that disagreed with him. It just shows pettiness and lack of character.

It was a huge contrast with G. W. Bush, who wouldn't even attack the press who were trashing him in a clearly partisan way. Bush did not have a glowing resume' either, but he conducted himself in the Presidency in a way that showed a man of character and strength, even if you disagreed with his policy.

Obama is simply not a man with the history, ability or personality to have much authority. He was a silly choice, even if he would have gotten lucky in office, which he didn't, which means WE didn't. That's 100% our fault, not his. I don't think McCain was a good choice, but that's our fault too.

Not good. If the fetus is not going to survive whether it's carried to term or not, there is no "bright future that could have been" to rhapsodize about. It would be obvious, especially after his own administration admitted the flaws of the program, that he was full of crap if he tried to blame the Supreme Court.

That was pretty good post until the stillborn baby stuff. Creepy. The true sign of an ideologue is their willingness to ignore any and all feedback that their politically inspired policies don't/haven't/won't work. They blame, accuse, rant and rave, then double down and do it all again. They learn nothing and forget nothing. And they hold grudges.

Let's hope Althouse's law-lectures are better than her attempts at political writing or ethics. (rumors are, they're not)

For that matter ,what about the ethics of allowing 9 judicial mobsters decide on HC legislation...indirectly supported by millions? The real issue. Ie, it's a decision for congress and House, not Scalia-Co. The metaphor not relevant at all (actually blasphemous like most of Althouse rants).

The problem with the metaphor is that a fetus is not designed, crafted and built by the parents. They hold no responsibility for it's defects. The responsibility is the whole thing - the reason there is a discussion at all to have. Otherwise we could just say: it's God's will. That's not gonna fly for Obama on this.

You must really be one heck of a drama queen to think that hardcore left-wing nutters would allow themselves to see the election of a Republican over Obama, and that Obama's best hope for avoiding that would be to watch and lament the entire repeal of his signature piece of legislation.

I think applying Occam's razor to your fantasies would help you realize just how outlandish they are. In the world of possible political scenarios, there are hypotheticals and there are counterfactuals. And then there are rhapsodic Althousian dream sequences of a magnitude and depth of fantasy not seen anywhere but in the movie Inception.

But there would be people who voted for him in 2008 who would rhapsodize about what could have been, and blame the Supreme Court. If you replace Obama with those who voted for him, it has more validity.

The metaphor also comes from a natural liberal view point that sees the unborn child as like a law that the parents(actually just the mother) created and therefore has every right to destroy at will.

The pro-life view is that the fetus is something outside the sole authority of the mother. It has the right to be considered as more than a bad sculpture, or poorly written page that the artist simply discards at will.

You don't just repeal a child, and you don't deeply morn the loss of a piece of legislation.

It's got nothing to do with what I "want". It's just a fact of life that a weak economy always favors the challenger in a Presidential election. Clinton certainly benefitted from this effect in 92, does that make him a bad person?

I don't like the metaphor. A young couple we are close to was expecting their first child. The baby died in utero two weeks before the due date. My friend had to deliver vaginally. It was the saddest funeral I've ever been to.

Bag, when are you going to finally apologize for the wanton destruction you've visited upon billions of your sperm cells, beautiful living creatures that you've discarded out of existence, like they were nothing more than so many poorly written laws?

It's got nothing to do with what I "want". It's just a fact of life that a weak economy always favors the challenger in a Presidential election.

Sure it does. You want Obama to lose. Which means you want a weak economy. It's what Republicans in Congress want as well, which means they are doing everything they can to make sure the economy is as weak as possible. Not exactly a secret, they've admitted as much.

The genocide that Bag has visited on his own sperm cells truly shocks and horrifies me.

Since he is so willing to carry those precious morsels of life to their ultimate purpose, I suggest he follow an example from the animal kingdom. Certain species of frog carry their eggs in their mouth, in order to protect them from predators and the elements.

I suggest that other men use Bag's mouth and face as a carrying receptacle for the preservation of their own beautiful specimens of living progeny-in-the-making!

Ritmo, I've donated every sperm cell I ever created since puberty to sperm banks. Eventually, my spawn will control the planet. Look around, half the people you see are my offspring. The rest voted for Obama, but we are growing in numbers in 2012 we will begin to take power.

But surely you wouldn't object to other men using your face and mouth as a beautiful, well-designed carrying receptacles for their spawn, as well, would you? I mean, the goal is preservation of all potentially living entities, isn't it?

I don't like the metaphor. A young couple we are close to was expecting their first child. The baby died in utero two weeks before the due date. My friend had to deliver vaginally. It was the saddest funeral I've ever been to.-----------

Althouse prides herself as the provocateur, you know pushing the envelop, going where others dare not go for fear of offending someone's sensibilities. That is her brand.

Ritmo, you sure do wake up horny in the morning, or is it just me and my incredible sex appeal. I'm truly flattered. Do you man a glory hole somewhere I could visit? I rarely have someone come on to me like this. It's very exciting.

"The metaphor is actually incredibly good. If you don't like it, specify why you don't like it."

OK. As metaphors go, yours focuses in the wrong place. The 'stillborn child' idea has, at its heart, the notion of an emotional yearning for all that the child could have been. The SCOTUS as abortionist idea offers a villian who steals the future away. I don't think that's the source of the discontent on the left with O.

The lefty comments you highlight use ObamaCare more generally, as an example of how everything should be wonderful and free if only we wished it hard enough. Think of Judy tapping her ruby slippers together. At base, it's almost a Biblical idea -- we were promised a land overflowing with milk and honey, it's our God-given right to live in the Garden of Eden!, and O was our Messiah who would lead us there. So why aren't we there?

That's a fractured fairy-tale version of a millenial theme that has surfaced thoughout American history. The lefties, at some level, seem to believe in it. Certainly the idea of earning what you get in life doesn't figure highly in their world-view. Since economics is plainly something none of those lefties have ever heard of, it may be that Max Weber was left off their reading lists for the class in Feel-Good 101 at whatever college overcharged them for the antithesis of an education.

Your stillborn/abortionist metaphor misses all that. It substitutes an emotional yearning rooted in personal loss, for the more general disconnect between millenial expectations and gritty reality that (I think) is closer to the mark.

Mark Steyn does a nice job with this kind of thing -- his piece on OWS as a manifestation of the disappearance of the American middle class (available at NRO) strikes me as a better metaphor for what's going on in the lefto-sphere.

Ritmo, "bagoh" is one of Byro the acid-head sockpuppet's names--you know ..half the names on here and Trooper. male, female (deborah, others), gay (titus), macho ("spinelli"--hah), left and right, depending on its psychosis. Right now its in right-wing schtick (he is right wing, actually-- whitesupremacist). He's like a first year nursing flunkie--mitochondria! whoa. Byro the nazi male nurse.

"Comparing Obamacare to a still born child (I have not been through that myself but I know people who have and it is trather tragic) is what is a bit much."

People compare laws to dead bodies all the time. For example: The jobs bill was dead on arrival.

Law is often compared to a living being. The classic example is from Justice Holmes, referring to the law that is the Constitution:

[W]e must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism...

When I get to that in conlaw class, I like to do my Dr. Frankenstein interpretation: "It's alive!"

Justice Scalia likes to riff on that, saying he prefers dead.

People do joke about life and death, you know.

(I realize that abortion feels different, because it's not the kind of death that is inevitable, and you may feel that it's important to stop the killing or at least act somber about it.)

Your foetus metaphor is viable, but it is too ugly to be brought to light. I would recommend using Occam's razor to perform a C-section and then put the ugly foetus in a government sponsored, sheltered workshop for homely metaphors. There it can play with the money shots and verbal diarrhea and grow to its full potential.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

* Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Ironically, Obama would be publicly denouncing the Court for getting political and secretly grateful that the political benefit came to him.

Sorry, that's not irony, it's disingenuousness and deceit. It's the hallmark of the modern liberal politician, who can't reveal their real motives or real objectives, because they'd never be elected to anything.

The metaphor only works as you later amended it in your 9:23 comment, to that of a deformed fetus, but even then it works only somewhat. In a real-life abortion most certainly the mother would be consulting and working with her physicians to arrive at the termination decision, but in Obama's case, he's not consulting or working with the SCOTUS to scuttle ACA, and he'd want the world to believe he was opposed what SCOTUS did.

The more honorable thing for Obama to do is get out the coat hanger and do his own back-alley job on ACA. Now that's irony.

Althouse just simply forgets millons of Americans need affordable health care--not all ghetto-dwellers. Middle class as well. The HCR bill was not great, but maybe some help to them. Forget them, says Lord Althouse--Scalia & Co need to make another irrational egotistic Pronouncement.

How about an alternate metaphor? Obamacare is a malignant cancer that is going to sicken and weaken the host, but is now in remission. The Supreme Court is the surgeon who has the opportunity to remove the killer tumor before it has a chance to spread and do even more damage.

I think it is the best metaphor ever! And if you don't agree with me, please post a 700 word essay explaining why. Be specific, I don't give partial credit.

roger J is right on about Althouse - another observation: AA never responds to a smart takedown of her observations - just ignore the responses that destroy her argument - it only makes her seem weak and not very sure of herself

garage mahal said, It's what Republicans in Congress want as well, which means they are doing everything they can to make sure the economy is as weak as possible.

What a joke. What do you call Obamacare, EPA regs which will cause skyrocketing energy costs, not restarting drilling in the Gulf, and spending twice as much as Bush? If you Dems were in fact trying your best to actually DESTROY the economy, how much differently would you be acting?

As to the abortion metaphor, I don't think it goes far enough. Obamacare is more like the Alien movie. The alien has been implanted and is bursting out and will kill its host. Perhaps we can remove it, butthe host may die eventually anyway. Some damage is irreparable. For example, the insurance companies aren't going to lower their rates.

The Firedoglakers forgot that Obamacare was designed to fail: it would make private insurance so expensive, normally-sensible people would demand single-payer. It wouldn't be an immaculate conception, however. They did too good a job making it unworkable.

MM, we knew from the beginning that W was a part-time conservative, so there wasn't quite as much a sense of betrayal. And he presevered in Iraq and won, despite the Dems' hopes and screams to the contrary.

Garage, if our side hopes and believes the economy stays flat another year, your side wanted the US to lose a war for partisan gain, so eat shit.

I like how liberals believe that the federal government is an omnipotent god.

Americans *need* affordable health care... the only reason for opposing simply *having* it, is because people hate "ghetto-dwellers." So, uh, maybe if I try to tell them that it's not just "ghetto-dwellers" that need it, but middle class white racists TOO, then they will decide to simply *have* it and stop obstructing the omnipotent federal government from declaring it so.

"Do conservatives really think illegal abortions are what we should go back to? How regressive of them."

Well, firstly, protecting babies is not misogynic.

And I don't think that conservatives "really think" that we should go back to illegal abortions.

However... lets just go with that for a moment and see where it leads.

Are a relative handful of illegal abortions worse than millions of legal ones?

Since birth control and choice and the ability to control reproduction is so readily available is attaching public shame to abortion really worse than millions of legal and often *celebrated* terminations?

What we were told, of course, is that illegal abortions and back-alley abortions are so tragic and so bad that we must make abortion legal in order to protect the desperate.

The number of desperate women seems to have increased by magnitudes, since we're still forbidden from questioning any woman's choice that she has obviously taken so very seriously.

Even the ones who have a party and buy a t-shirt or refuse to use condoms and would rather get Plan B since she hasn't got a steady boy-friend, than be on the pill just in case she gets laid.

Would making abortion illegal again really be worse than what making it legal has done?

I think a better metaphor is of the Supreme Court as nature. A law which violates the constitution should be struck down. Similarly, a misbegotten fetus will die due to whatever problem it has. Which is to say that it and nature are not compatible with it remaining alive.

Abortion, on the other hand is (usually) the killing of a perfectly healthy fetus. If the health care law was perfectly good and the supremes struck it down due to political convenience, then the analogy would be sound.

How naive you must be, Meade, to believe that you and "your side" get to decide the ways in which John Boehner, Eric Cantor and their much wealthier patrons will choose to wield their power.

Also, a lost war might hurt your patriotism, if you define it that narrowly - but it can save lives and prestige if avoiding quagmire matters. A broken economy OTOH causes actual pain, and not the kind that patriotism can assuage.

Was that the best you could come up with? Apparently the blog's milder critics and stronger fans think this thread's in need of better salvaging efforts than that.

You may be right, Althouse, about Obama's best reelection chances. But I don't think it will be nearly enough to get it done. Still, what a sad comment that is about today's voters in this country. That some folks would actually buy that bill of goods proffered by the Democratic Party. How many times will a mark pay to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge?

I am hardly an Obama fan; in 2008 I thought he'd be another Carter and voted for McCain. But to be fair, anyone elected President in 2008 or who is elected in 2012 or 2016 (assuming we are still having elections) will be loathed and vilified. So many promises have been made and so much money borrowed to buy votes by both parties, that it can never be redeemed. The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates the unfunded liabilities of government in the US at $211 Trillion. That can never be paid. So OWS is just the start of the entitlement riots as people demand what they were promised, that cannot be delivered. (Never mind OWS's demands to cancel all debts, thus wiping out all savings and retirement funds!) Things are going to get much worse. They will be very painful if we pull together to fix things--or incredibly painful involving violence and bloodshed if we do not. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog

Robert A. HallAuthor: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)For a free PDF of the book, write tartanmarine(at)gmail.com

I am not that offended by the abortion/stillborn comment. It is more a cliche than a great analogy. I do not disagree that Obama would benefit by the Supremes striking Obamacare down. Even though I am not an Obama fan, I hope they do. Obamacare is really that bad. Destroying the fiscal vitality of this country is a devestating thing to do.

Ann, I am tired of J's crap. He is offensive. He has said foul things about my children and other good commentators at this site. Anywhere else his behavior would result in an immediate ban. I am not against free speech. J can have his own blog and spew to his heart's content. But I would prefer not to be around it anymore.